PERSONALITY MATRIX
Part 2 addendum:

More on the function definitions

"Super Short version"
Back to Part 2

More on the function definitions
Most elemental definitions
Different perspectives with the functions
Dominant function types
Intentional Style tandems
Attitudes and "universals" vs "culture"
Function-attitudes described in terms of behaviors
S as "SPACE" and N as "TIME"
Deeper definition of i/e attitudes
More on "add/subtract" definitions of e/i function-attitudes
Deciphering Ni, and the difference from Ne (and Si)
Spine, Arm and opposite orientation of dominant
Another perspective on the functions: Matrix of objects, motion, holistic and linear
•Linear/holistic and T/F/J/P

Most elemental definitions

Functions are divisions of reality, into either taking in (perceiving) or making rational assessment with (judging) information, with perceiving being either what's "known" in "space" (S), or its "implications" through "time" (N), and judgment as what's mechanically "correct" (T) or is desirable to humans (F), and these perspectives are stimulated either through the external environment (e) or an individual's (i) self-"reference" (reflection, internal "models" of what is, is implied, is true or is good, etc).

The best way to define the functions is to define the “objects” (which are what differentiate the products of the functions):

S: tangible “objects” themselves
N: patterns and inferences by the objects
T: other people's, groups' or objects' determined “truths”
F: other people themselves, and their wants, needs and hikes

The “subject” in each case is the same thing; the conscious ego processing the function. The subjective perspective creates a “model” of the object, which it filters new objective data through, retaining what is deemed relevant, which new observations and decisions will be based on.
What the objectively focused subject does, according to Jung, is to essentially “merge” with the object, making it the new 'subjective' element.

Here are what result when the function is paired with the object/subject orientation or "attitude":

Se recognition of objects interacted with in space is stimulated by the environment (as it emerges in the external world)
Si recognition of objects interacted with in space is stimulated by individual reference (filtered through internal recollection)
Ne recognition of patterns implied through time is stimulated by the environment (one pattern implies another “externally”)
Ni recognition of patterns implied through time is stimulated by individual reference (looks outside the pattern to the internal subconscious)
Te determination of what's correct (true/false via how things work) is stimulated by environmental necessity (external objects determine efficient course of action)
Ti determination of what's correct (true/false; via how things work) is stimulated by individual reference (internal reflection determines models of truth)
Fe determination of what's desired (good/bad to people) is stimulated by environmental necessity (external standard of creating harmony with people)
Fi determination of what's desired (good/bad to people) is stimulated by individual reference (emotional affect and model of harmony determined through internal reflection)

The NEUROLOGICAL connections; what's actually going on in the brain:

Se: Neural connections made by CURRENT, DIRECT input
Si: Neural connections made by PREVIOUS, DIRECT input
Ne: CURRENT neural connections from INDIRECT input
Ni: PREVIOUS neural connections from INDIRECT input
Te: Previous neural connections instruct current ones based on impersonal objects
Ti: Current neural connections matched with previous ones based on impersonal objects
Fe: Previous neural connections instruct current ones based on our emotional state
Fi: Current neural connections matched with previous ones based on our emotional state

To start to understand the function-attitudes, we can look at the common human "faculties" they are associated with. To start, extraverted Sensing (Se) involves the basic senses, of touch, taste, sight, hearing and smell. Introverted Sensing (Si) is involved with "memory", where we store our sensory experiences to bring back up to consciousness to compare with current experience. Now, the natural mistake to make is to define simply "Se=current experiences" and "Si=memory", etc. This is not totally true. For one thing, only certain types have a normal preference for Se or Si, but every person has both current sensation and memory! So the function-attitudes are specialized attention to the data taken in through the faculties, as used by the ego-structure.

The eight faculties are:
Current sensation (associated with Se products; stimulation via space)
Memory (associated with Si products; stores and filters spatial data)
Imagination (associated with Ne products; of potential changes through time)
The unconscious (associated with Ni products; filters temporal patterns)
Common Sense (associated with Te products; learning from outside authority how things work)
Reason (associated with Ti products; learning or determining for yourself how things work)
Sociabilty (associated with Fe products; connecting with people via the environment)
The conscience (associated with Fi products; our own human values used to relate to others).

Different perspectives with the functions

In everything we process, there is some sort of tangible object or energy (light, sound, etc.), that can be taken in immediately or stored in memory. It can be intangibly connected to other objects, contexts, ideas or impressions, either directly or through less conscious means. We will think something about it is true or false, and this based either on external means we've learned from the environment or are dictated by the local situation, or internal principles we've learned individually, often through nature; and we may like or dislike it or something about it, again, based either on an external values we've learned from the environment, or internal values we've learned individually through nature.

One big conflict I always had, is that the S's frequently say "that's life", but I want to know "WHY". There must be some overarching reason things happen the way they do. To them, I was just "grasping at smoke" instead of "just dealing with life as it is"; and to me, they were just being fatalistic and trite. Also, an S perspective would be the one to insist on "coincidences", while N says "there are no coincidences" and looks for a larger meaning.

It should be noted that the above is a more S + J vs N + P conflict. S with the P attitude would still see things as they are, but be more open to trying to exploit or make a move with what is available rather than just settle (hence, a similarity with their N counterpart). He will respond to what's possible the way things are. "Possible" is usually associated with N, but intuition goes beyond the current situation, where Sensing deals with exploiting what "is".

I now would define “possible” by:
S what's “do-able”
N what's “potential”

"Facts" are usually associated with either attitude of S, but they are really more the domain of S combined with J. In Berens' example cited below, the Se type references current facts, but does not create a storehouse of data (to inform decisions) with them.
N with the J attitude would look for reasons why, but likely fix itself onto one (derived internally), and might end up nearly just as much "that's the way it is", as their S counterpart. (And hence, builds a case that "is" is really a good term for all of perception, and thus "known" would be a better specifier of S. So Ne will say "is" also, but it will be hypothetical, and more readily open to change on an easily controllable mental whim).

(You could say S and T both deal in "fact", but S is about experiencing "fact" while T is about judging "fact". Also, where S may observe that “it is what it is” and realize what CAN be done, T often decides “it is what it is”, inasmuch as it affects a necessary course of action: “what SHOULD be done”. And the "J" attitude variants, Si and/or Te seem to be the ones most likely to fall back on "it is what it is", where the "P" attitude Se and/or Ti will continue to look for other courses of action. Likewise, regarding "taking action", Se perceives what action can be taken, while Te decides to take the action. Si and Ti are the same, but based on internal knowledge, thus not seeming as much about "taking action"
N and F on the other hand, can be seen as dealing with the particularly "human" element, in contrast to a purely material existence; basically what things mean to us. Again, N will be perceiving meanings, and F will be judging what things mean to us, in terms of how they affect us emotionally).

Not realizing these distinctions, I had started off jumping into a couple of online lists populated mostly by F's (mostly N also), who discussed all aspects of the theory, focusing on the theoretical big picture as well as technical details, but then had to wonder why they thought I was being too "impersonal" when I focused on factors of comparative personality systems. For them, it was more about self-improvement and relationships. To me, those were just "fringe benefits" of a series of symmetries that ["finally!"] had some kind of practical use to be discussable with others. (Ironically, some thought I was an F, because of the "enthusiasm". T was supposedly "detached" emotionally. This was a common, but mistaken association, and one of the things I'm really trying to clear up with the "people vs things" and "humane vs technical" terms).

Here is a table of terms I associate with the four natural functions, and the two attitudes:

	basic product	deals in	passive product	active product	alt. terms	other terms	"in..."	Bruzon	old terms	Jung
S	material (space)	substance	is (actual)	behold(observe)	tangible	experience	practice	static (items)	concrete²	"what it is"
N	hypothesis (time)	idea	could (potential)	infer/imagine	conceptual	story	theory	motion (process)	abstract²	"where it's heading"
T	mechanics (things)	impersonal	true/false	correct/incorrect	technical	"if-then"	"the head"	linear	logic	naming (categories)
F	soul affect (people)	personal¹	good/bad	like/dislike	humane	"human factor"	"the heart"	holistic	ethics/values	"what's it's worth"
e	environment (real world)	external	culture	turn outward	emergent	breadth	"the now"	wide(p)local(j)	objective³	"conscious"^4
i	individual (models)	internal	nature	turn inward	stored	depth	universals	local(p)wide(j)	subjective³	"unconscious"^4

¹also used for "introversion"
²also used for i/e and/or differentiated vs undifferentiated functions
³also used for T/F
⁴also used for S/N

Here are the definitions of the functions in terms of the "images" of reality our cognition is based on:

Se: individual’s images match current environment
Si: individual’s images ONCE matched the environment, but currently can only be held among individuals sharing the experience
Ne: individual’s images never matched environment, but are still based on the environment (and thus others can possibly be made to perceive them)
Ni: individual’s images have never matched the environment, and can only be directly perceived by the individual.
Te: individual’s assessment of true/false (mechanics of the situation) are determined by the environment.
Ti: individual’s assessment of true/false (mechanics of the situation) are determined by individual reflection.
Fe: individual’s assessment of good/bad (soul-affect of the situation) are determined by the environment.
Fi: individual’s assessment of good/bad (soul-affect of the situation) are determined by individual reflection.

Dominant types

Each pair of types (sharing the same "dominant") can be seen as the "servant" of that functional perspective (and the aspect of it they are most gratified by):

ESP: Servant of current tangible experience ("let's jump on it for the experience!"")
ISJ: Servant of experience by learned fact ("let's learn from the experience")
ENP: Servant of filling in interconnections between objects ("let's add this idea to it")
INJ: Servant of filling in patterns with unarticulated ideas ("this is left out of the idea")
ETJ: Servant of local impersonal "correct"ness ("this is correct for the situation")
ITP: Servant of universal impersonal "truth" ("it's true!")
EFJ: Servant of local interpersonal "likes" ("people will like this")
IFP: Servant of universal personal "good" ("it's good!")

Dominant perpectives (what your ego is most energized in saying):
S: “Behold!” (“hark”, hands-on, etc.)
N: “Imagine!"
T: “True!” (“correct”)
F: “Good!” (“Nice!”)

Se: Behold! what's before us
Si: Behold! how it has proven itself to be
Ne: Imagine! from these patterns we can ponder on
Ni: Imagine! from what your mind can come up with
Te: Correct! according to what's before us
Ti: True! according to what I have determined
Fe: Nice! to the people around us
Fi: Good! according to what brings inner harmony

So the question to first ask, is whether your main outlook (and what you're most energized by and take the most pleasure in) is taking in information, or making some sort of positive/negative judgment (particularly looking for the positive: the “correct” or the “good”).
E/I and J/P together are supposed to tell you that, but a more direct way to do that is to go back to Jung's original use of j/p (i.e. rational/irrational), as referring to the dominant function.
The MBTI use, referring to the extraverted function, came in handy for the more “interactive” (temperament and Interaction Style) side of type, but it was originally framed around the more internal dynamic of each ego's dominant perspective.

Preferred function perpectives:

ST practical mechanics
SF practical humanities
NT philosophized mechanics
NF philosophized humanities

A quick wasy to get a sense of type in watching vloggers and Facebook posters; likely F's will be more about "living life" and "fun", such as doing the "challenges" vlogs will tag each other to do next. Thinking types may do some of this, but will devote more videos to "how to" presentations, in whatever their field is. (Even girly stuff like cosmetics).
Sensing types will remain on the practical side of life, whether fun, or day to day living, or the how to. Intuitives will do some of this, but also venture to more abstract topics like politics and religion. They will often engage their followers to join in a more intellctual discussion. Hence, their sense of the mechanics or human affects of things is more "philosophized".

"Intentional Style" tandems:

Realizing awareness: (“takes” things as they are)
Se: takes what is (items/events) from environment as occurs
Ni: takes existing constructs and infers from individual subconscious what could be
Inquiring awareness: (answers questions through comparison)
Si: compares items/events with individual knowledge of what is
Ne: compares constructs with environmental inferences of what could be.

Ordering assessments: (logic used for setting order):
Te/Fi: true to the environment; good for the individual

Aligning assessments: (logic deals more in variables):
Fe/Ti: Truth discovered individually; good to the environment

The relation of “memory” to the four perception attitudes: Se will use it to know what one has already mastered the exploitation of, which then becomes an enjoyed activity, while Si will do that and also use it to compare current experience with previously experienced fact. Ne references patterns stored in memory (like Si’s referencing facts stored in memory), while Ni fills in current patterns (like Se focuses on current experience) with stuff repressed from memory (not necessarily intentionally; likely just deeply forgotten stuff).

Attitudes and "universals" vs "local"/"culture"

Introverted functions end up dealing in “universals” because they are readily available to us, rather than the [“artificial”] judgments of a “manmade” group. We develop them by interacting naturally with our environment. So they’re unadapted to a specific cultural design and more individual than social. Anyone (in any culture) who is attuned to the environment in this way will reach similar conclusions. (So it’s not really about the universe; it’s about human embodiment). Introverted functions are about mapping our environment in our heads, where we then recognize landmarks and adjust ourselves to changes.

Examples of learned from culture are alphabetic order, math formulas and social etiquette. These rational standards are local, linking us to a specific place and time, where relationships (whether personal or impersonal, like math) requires a social contract held in common.
What can be learned naturally, individually (from our own experience, in contrast with cultural norms) can be the principles behind those things: how numbers work, or even technical details of [manmade] languages (the glyphs used in both fields are just abstract representations agreed on by a culture), or universal principles of what people like. That certain things you like or dislike you can assume (i.e. infer from within*) will be liked or disliked by others, since we’re all alike on a fundamental level. Like we all like to be comfortable, and don’t like to be attacked by others.

Typical descriptions of function-attitudes in terms of behaviors:

Perception functions, which is basically, taking in information:

Se: Concrete perception in the outer world of people and action. This comes out as paying most attention to the current experience.

Si: Concrete perception in the inner world of thoughts and emotions. How does one do this? You can loosely think of it in terms of relying on "memory". You've already taken the information in through the senses, now, it's inside. When you bring it up again from inside, you are engaging "introverted Sensing". (Attention to internal body sensations is also considered Si).
We must caution here that memory itself is not really Si. Especially since all people (of all types) have memory. This is just a convenient shorthand we can use to get a sense of how the function works. This is just an example of an internal storehouse of sensory data.

Ne: abstract perception in dealing with the outer world of people and actions. This involves looking at an object, and conceptualizing from it. You then imagine multiple possibilities for it.

Ni: abstract perception in the inner world of thoughts and emotions. The way this is described often sounds mystical, like ESP or something, as it does not rely on any outside perception. But all it really involves is the images that come up from the subconscious, which can be used to get the sense that a particular event is inevitable by referencing them to fill in patterns (or even tangible events) seen around you, and projecting what it may lead to. I have heard this described as the filling in of "what's missing" in an observed pattern, where Ne just compares external patterns, seeing one in terms of another.

So like Si; you have taken in the information; and now it's inside. When you fill it in with subconscious impressions, you are engaging Ni.
It doesn't even necessarily always involve future predictions. Ni often brings up images just for their own sake, which the people then often express using symbols or stories. These images can come up through meditation (where we free our minds from the "chatter" of all the other functional products), both when called on to fill in a pattern, or on their own.

Again, Ni has beens notably the hardest function to understand. It (and its difference from Ne and Si) shall be discussed in a separate section, below.

Judgment functions, which are basically arranging an environment.

Te: Arranging the outer world of people and actions according to logic. So effecting any change to things, such as objects, structures, organizations, etc. There will usually be an external standard of efficiency.

Ti: Arranging the inner world of thoughts and emotions according to logic. This is associated with actions such as naming and categorizing, because these take place internally. There will also be frameworks one adheres to. My attraction to temperament and type theory in the first place is because of its symmetries, such as originally, the expressive/responsive matrix, and now, the type dichotomies. It just so happens to explain my experience with people, and my own thought processes (which will be a Feeling type's initial focus). So I like to find symmetries in things. You can see this in some of my other essays. It's a logical arrangement of the inner world. Symmetry is an example of a universal principle. Introverted judgment deals with both the personal and the universal. So there are universal principles, which we can select as personal principles or frameworks.

Fe: Arranging the outer world of people and actions according to values. This will manifest as connecting with people and creating or maintaining harmony in the group. It will also be connected with responding to expressed needs.

Fi: Arranging the inner world of thoughts and emotions according to values. This is described in terms of maintaining "congruence" between one's own actions and values. This will support an internal "harmony". They will use something like the type theories more for self-understanding and improvement. (Hence, a lot of NFP's involved in type discussions). There are also universal values which will be referenced, and the person can respond to what others need even when they don't express it.

(Notice, the extraverted descriptions are more brief. They are easier to understand and explain, while introverted functions, especially the judgments and iNtuition, can be more "fuzzy", because of the fact that they are internal processes and thus a bit harder to really pinpoint or differentiate from each other or their extraverted counterparts at times).

Linda Berens (author of the Understanding Yourself and Others series and Dynamics of Personality Type; Telos Publications) came up with some nice short phrases and analogies for the functions:

Se="what is"
Si="what was"
Ne="what could be"
Ni="what will be"
Te="how to do it"
Ti="why it is"
Fe="what we need"
Fi="what is important"

There are also the descriptions:

Se: EXPERIENCE The experience
Si: RELIVE The experience
Ne: CONCEIVE FROM The experience
Ni: ANTICIPATE The experience
Te: ORGANIZE The experience
Ti: ANALYZE The experience
Fe: RELATE TO The experience
Fi: EVALUATE The experience

In addition, there is a "How to tell the forest from the trees" analogy done for the perception functions ("How to tell iNtuiting from extraverted Sensing" by Linda V. Berens and Judy Robb):

•Extraverted Sensing - Notices the rich detail in the whole forest - the trees, their color and texture, their sounds, their smells, the pattern of light and dark...

•Introverted Sensing - Notes that this forest has always been here and recalls being in a forest from childhood, smelling that smell and the fun of playing hide and seek behind the trees...

•Extraverted iNtuiting - Thinks of the fractal patterns, the wide range of possibilities in the forest, how this forest is part of the ecosystem and is affected by pollution from the city...

•Introverted iNtuiting - Recognizes that the forest is deeply symbolic of all of life in its interconnectedness and constant recycling and growth and foresees that this forest will soon be torn down for a housing development...

This would extend to the judgment functions as thus:

•Extraverted Thinking - Directs the clearing of the forest for the development on the basis of efficiency

•Introverted Thinking - References the principles of ecology to analyze the impact of the development

•Extraverted Feeling - Considers the benefit of new housing on people

•Introverted Feeling - Considers the importance of the forest and how much value it has in nature

These definitions I think are the best:

purpose or standard:
e attention or evaluation is derived directly from external object (environmental perspective)
i attention or evaluation is filtered through internal subjective blueprint (individual perspective)
S registers spacelike reality as real and reacts accordingly
N registers the timelike implications of reality and puts it out as an idea
T Assesses, understands and responds to the way things work
F Assesses, understands, and responds to the way people are affected (particularly emotionally)

Se: attention to immediate (external) at hand data ("known"; tangible material items in the environment of space, the "substance" or "practice" of things):
Hence, a greater inclination for physical activity and sensory experience
Also, a greater appearance of "Experiencing and noticing the physical world " (Berens)

Si: filtering at hand data ("known"; tangible material items in space, the "substance" or "practice" of things) through an internal storehouse of fact and individual experience
Will focus on practical knowledge and affairs.
Will rely a lot on "memory" or "recalling", but memory itself is not the actual process.

Ne: hypothetical connections ("guessed"; intangible constructs, the "idea" or "theory" of things) are implied (and "filled in") by the object (patterns in the environment of time)
Looks at objects and imagines different possibilities based on patterns shared in common with other objects.
Hence, a greater appearance of "inferring relationships, noticing threads of meaning, etc" (Berens)

Ni: hypothetical connections ("guessed"; intangible constructs, the "idea" or "theory" of things) are implied ("filled in") by an internal, individual impression of possibilities in time
Will tend to "fill in" where a situation is going or what it means; generally "what's missing" from a pattern
Will often come across as "foreseeing" or "having images of the future or profound meaning", but it's not always about the future, specifically.

Te: mechanics or proper relationship between things (true/false; correct/incorrect) is determined by the objects themselves (the environment or learned from culture)
Will order based on maximum logical efficiency, often in a predetermined, formulaic fashion
Hence, "organizing [assumed to be logical], segmenting, sorting" and a greater appearance of "applying" logic. Their perspective is "the situation demands this course of logical action, and so it is my job to see it through".

Ti: mechanics or proper relationship between things (true/false; correct/incorrect) is determined by internal blueprint (learned individually or from nature)
Will use subjectively chosen logical frameworks, and sometimes logic or facts "for their own sake" rather than an externally efficient goal.
Hence, a focus on elegant "models", "categories" and "naming" things, figuring out how they work or fit together (i.e. the correct relationship of their parts), and thus an appearance of "analyzing". Will also project this need onto others, figuring "if that were me, I would want that truth, so they must want it too". They then often become pointed "truth-tellers", but this at times offends people.

[Actually both attitudes will "analyze" things and want to "apply" their decisions, but the internal or external nature of the attitude does make these respective processes more apparent].

Fe: soul-affects or proper relationship involving people (good/bad; like/dislike) is evaluated according to external values (the environment or learned from culture)
Will take on the values, needs or emotions of others as if they were one's own: "They feel this way, so I feel this way too".
Hence, a greater appearance of "considering others"

Fi: soul-affects or proper relationship involving people (good/bad; like/dislike) is evaluated according to an internal blueprint of values (learned individually or from nature)
Will infer the needs of others from evolving situations, and ones' own sense of universal values "If that were me, how I would want to be treated?"
These variables will often lead to the "weighing", "evaluating congruence" and looking for ultimate "importance".

[Again, the different attitudes can do the same things. Like Fe will not necessarily just go along and do what others want, but will also have to weigh against internal values (which again, don't constitute the "Feeling" judgment itself), but the data will be filtered through the internal perception perspective (memorized fact or {intangible} impressions of what's right or wrong, based on other environments they may have a greater allegiance to). Likewise, Fi will then "consider others" from its internal personal identification].

I would redo and expand the "to be" conjugations as follows:
Se: "What is" ["known" in the moment]
Si: "What was" [used to filter what currently "is" known]
Ne: "What IF" [the common question Ne poses; what can be “discovered” treated as if it "is"]
Ni: "What YET" [what remains to be “revealed”, also treated as if it "is"; more on "discovered" vs "revealed" below]
Te: "HOW TO" [object determines logical course of action]
Ti: "HOW IS" [analyzing individually how things work]
Fe: "WHO we ARE" [group focused harmony]
Fi: "WHO I AM" [identify via one’s own humanity]

(So we see here, how the functions establish the “what”, “how” and “who”).

When these perspectives are dominant, they will be your main "world-view", if you really look at it long enough. When auxiliary, they are more about support through attitudinal (i/e orientation and j/p class; i.e. to inform judgments or utilize perceptions) balance.

Now as you can see above, "what is" and "what could be" are used by Berens for Ne and Se, respectively, where I for awhile used those terms for S and N in general, until deciding that "known" and "guessed" were better. And notice, it's both of the extraverted functions that match what I had assigned to the natural function.

You could see the introverted perceptions as special versions of “what is” and “what could be”, since they have been internalized. What “was” is just an internal blueprint that “what is” is compared to, so Si ultimately pays more attention to “what is” after all.
“What will be” is not really the best specific description for Ni. It seems that way, because it can be used to get a 'sense' of the future, but it’s really in general filling in any observed pattern, regardless of the time frame (which is more of a rational element that a judgment function is needed to deal with).
You often see in others’ function descriptions “what could be” used for Ni, and this is in the sense that even with their less “up-in-the air” (like Ne) impressions, what Ni types come up with is still not 100% certain (hence, you can’t really say “will be”), so it, just as much as Ne, is ultimately a "guess" of “could".

To further explain why N is about "guesses" or "coulds"; of the different N products; obviously, pondering on something that doesn’t exist, that you wonder about making exist, or if it will come about on it’s own or by someone else, or science “theory”, is "guessing", and thus dealing with “could” be. (Like in personality theory itself, there is never any absolute “is”, whether type preferences, temperament patterns, etc.; it’s all at best a "guess" of “could”).

Concepts such as religious doctrine, and politics may not seem like “coulds” at first, largely because of the way they are often pontificated as absolute “fact”. But they are not tangible items that can be proven on the spot, like the law of gravity (or the other three forces, which govern things such as the nature of what we call “solid objects” that we can touch, see, etc.)
They are at best, things that “could” be true, but different people will see them differently (proof they are not tangible realities), and then have to use more intangible constructs to try to dismiss the other person’s view. Religion even usually admits this, ultimately, when they start saying it is by “faith”, which is a kind of "guess" that it is true.).

Stuff like archetypes, symbols, etc. also may not seem like “coulds”, because they’re alternative ways of looking at reality, and seem like sort of “realities” of their own, but then that’s where their “could” lies: “could” be a way to see the situation! And use their patterns to "guess" how another pattern will play out.

A fantasy, such as an alternate reality, or “story” (fiction, etc.) deals in what “could have been“. Even with things naturally impossible, what you’re imagining then, is basically a different set of universal laws (or suspensions of/exceptions to them) that “could have been”. It's sort of a "guess" of how life would play out under scenarios we create.

Berens' "The Philosophy of life that engages in {Xy}" in Dynamics of Personality Type may turn out to be the best short descriptions to understand them as perspectives with:

Se: There is always more to be experienced, and opportunities don't last.
Si: There is always a comparison to be made, and if it is familiar, it is to be trusted
Ne: There are always other perspectives and new meanings to discover
Ni: There is always a future to realize and a significance to be revealed
Te: Everything can be logical, structured and organized
Ti: Everything can be explained and understood in terms of how it works
Fe: Everything can be considered in terms of how it affects others
Fi: Everything can be in harmony or congruence

As "primary world-views" I would rephrase them as:

Se: The environment must contain new experiences
Si: Life must be familiar to my individual experience
Ne: The environment must contain alternatives, new possibilities
Ni: Life must contain alternatives/possibilities according to my individual visions
Te: The environment must be efficiently organized
Ti: Life must make sense to my individual understanding
Fe: The environment must be socially friendly
Fi: Life must be personally congruent to my individual understanding

to break them further into elemental factors:

Se: I must exploit external material experience (what's currently "known"; physical and practical items in the environment) directly
Si: I must exploit material experience filtered internally by what's already "known" (physical and practical items referenced individually)
Ne: I must infer connections (what's "inferred"; mental or hypothetical constructs) from the external data (other constructs in the environment)
Ni: I must infer connections (what's "inferred"; mental or hypothetical constructs) from unconscious impressions (accessed individually)
Te: The mechanics of life must make sense (be "true"/"correct") in the environment
Ti: The mechanics of life must make sense (be "true"/"correct") to my individual understanding
Fe: The soulish impact of life must be harmonious ("good"/"desirable") according to the environment
Fi: The soulish impact of life must be harmonious ("good"/"desirable") in my individual estimation

To further illustrate the concept of the functions as "senses of meaning" or "perspectives" that interpret instinctual reactions, Berens lists each of the process's reactions to three situations. One of them was an earthquake.

Se: Notices things moving and when hearing the magnitude, researches the facts on it
[itemization of what's "known" — substance of reality; current material experience in the environment]
Si: Compares this quake to an earlier one, including the motions of the quake, and how it made the person feel physically.
[itemization of what's "known" — substance of reality; through individual material experience]
Ne: Wonders why the last earthquake had different affects and considers possible reasons
[filling in hypothetical interconnections of objects (comparisons of environmental events and causes; "constructs"; what "could" be — ideas of experience].
Ni: A knowing about a career path in science*
[filling in an event with a hypothetical construct of what "could" be internally from an individual impression].
Te: Organizing responses to the problem, with a focus on the organizing itself, despite its affect on the person
[correct course of action according to environment]
Ti: Analyzing technical details about the earthquake and adding them to mental models.
[what's correct according to what's learned individually and naturally]
Fe: Responding to a relative's emotional need afterward by visiting more
[what's "good" according to the immediate environment; the affected person]
Fi: Pondering a suspected deep affect on people, even when they were acting normal on the surface
[what's not "good", learned individually and naturally, and projected onto others via an unconscious "if that were me..."]

*(This example is based on the notion of Ni dealing with "future implications", but there is more to the process than just this).

How both attitudes of the functions play out in "external" and "internal" "uses". This needs to be cleared up, when we say one attitude is "external", and the other, "internal". It's not really "where" they're "used", but rather than standard or source of the perspective (environmental or individual). So both standards/sources have both external and internal applications.

	External	Internal
Se	Taking in new experience for its own sake	Remembering what you enjoy and doing it again
Si	Filtering new experience through a storehouse of what’s familiar	Referencing a storehouse of facts to inform regular decisions
Ne	Comparing one pattern to another	Brainstorming for ideas for an object or situation
Ni	Interpreting an external pattern with “what’s missing”, that comes up from unconscious internal impressions	Meditating to bring up internal images, and creating meanings with them.
Te	Ordering the environment according to impersonal principles	Ordering one’s own life according to impersonal principles learned from the environment or culture
Ti	Implementing one’s own individually determined principles	“Thinking for its own sake” (Jung); relishing individual impersonal principles for their “elegance”
Fe	Establishing interpersonal harmony	Taking in environmental values as one’s own
Fi	Projecting an emotional state onto someone experiencing something, and responding accordingly	Focusing on one’s own personal likes and values, and relishing emotional experiences

Some other ways of putting the functions:

Se: Referencing of external experience (present reality)
Si: Referencing of internal experience (past reality and internal sensations)
Ne: Referencing of external patterns (alternate reality of possibilities and conceptualizations)
Ni: Referencing of internal [unconscious] patterns (future reality foreseen by implications)
Te: Decides based on technical validity from external standard
Ti: Decides based on technical validity from internal standard
Fe: Decides based on humane value from external standard
Fi: Decides based on humane value from internal standard

Se: extraveted Sensing —spatial object recognition in the "real world" situations (what's "known") of the environment
Si: introverted Sensing —spatial object recognition in a “model” of situations (what's "known") in an individual
Ne: extraverted iNtuition —temporal pattern recognition in the "real world" situations (what's "inferred") of the environment
Ni: introverted iNtuition —temporal pattern recognition in a “model” of situations (what's "inferred") in an individual
Te: extraverted Thinking —impersonal truth determination in the "real world" situations (how things work) of the environment
Ti: introverted Thinking —impersonal truth determination in a "model" of situations (how things work) in an individual
Fe: extraverted Feeling —human affect determination in the "real world" situations (how people are affected) of the environment
Fi: introverted Feeling —human affect determination in a "model" of situations (how people are affected) in an individual

The idea of Je as involving "revealed" judgments, was inspired by the notion of "revealed religion", where people adopt belief systems from outside of their own determination, sometimes without question. This is often accompanied by the old maxim "God said it, that settles it". Ji on the other hand, will first question whether He even said it!

So for the judgment attitudes, the "authority" is any external source, including people, group consensus, culture, analysis of 'efficiency', etc.:

Je: "they said it, that settles it"
Ji: "they said it, this is my take on it"

Perception is taking in information, and not about settling things, apart from the judgment function. So its attitudes might be like:

Pe: "the environment shows it, that unsettles it"
Pi: "my internal impressions show it, this is agrees with what 'they said'"

Pe can be described as going by what's "apparent", while Je has a standard that is "revealed". This is different from the "revealed" we've associated with Ni. Ni is about what's TO BE "revealed" (from wherever, that we currently have to "guess"), while Je is about the a particular thing; a determination of "right or wrong" being "revealed" from a proper (external) authority. (Again, think "they said it, that settles it"). Likewise, Pi is "self-referenced", and Ji is "self-determined"

Se: apparent reality
Si: self-referenced reality
Ne: apparent implications
Ni: self-referenced implications
Te: revealed truth
Ti: self-determined truth
Fe: revealed good
Fi: self-determined good

Here are descriptions, derived from Jung's Psychological types, of the eight function-attitude pairs in comparison to each other:
http://www.gesher.org/Myers-Briggs/Jung_8_types.html

It was earlier mentioned how "possibilities" is generally associated with N, but can apply to S as well. Well, the same thing happens with the extraverted attitude of both as well. The difference can be seen as Ne looks at possibilities on how to change situations, while Se looks at possibilities of already changing situations (the "emerging" reality).

S as "SPACE" and N as "TIME" (And T as "things", F as "people", and the "environment" as the reference point)

Where S was said by Jung to “register reality as real" or cover "what is", N was connected to time; "where it's heading". This does not explicitly mention space for S, but when you think of it, all sensory perception is spatial. We see or hear waves that come to us through space, smell particles that float to us through space, and touch and taste things we reach out through space and take. This occurs in time as well, but all the perceived objects are experienced through space (whose coordinates can be randomly accessed, meaning returned to at will). Time is where occurs the "idea" of them.
Like you can have a tangible unit like a building or even our bodies, but if every part (or our cells) are replaced one by one, then is it still the same material? What passes down through time is really an "idea" that the tangible "here and now" parts simply make up instant by instant. Think, "the house burned to the ground, but they rebuilt it". It's not the same house; just the "idea" of it across time, based on its location.
Matter itself may actually be waveforms that transfer from one "superstring" to another as the forces of acceleration or inertia "push" all the energy of the string from one location to the next, relative to other objects. The best way to think of this is a moving image on a screen of pixels. Nothing's actually "moving" except an "image", conveying, essentially, an "idea" programmed into the electronic circuits. (And of course, the whole idea of "motion" involves time).

Again, functions are by nature "mixed together" or "undifferentiated in reality, and only separated out by our consciousness. Hence, both S and N are involved in these examples. And the space and time they are derived from are intertwined as well. But to divide them, S is the spatial (random access) aspect, while N is the sequential (causative) aspect.
Time, unlike space, is one-way in progression, and thus we cannot return to previously visited coordinates. So we must use a different, non-sensory form of perception to access this dimension overall! This will follow the "patterns" of things and events through the time dimension, and by which we can get a sense of what may happen in the future, and even things that may have happened in the past that were not experienced via sensation, and also, perhaps why things are the way they are right now.

So, "What is" (i.e. tangibly "known") refers to what is sitting there in space, while what "could be" (and has to be inferred or "guessed") implies a time element; what could take on a tangible shape in the future, or even what could have been, in the past.

So now, to factor in the attitudes, extraversion deals in the "environment", while introversion is about the individual. Both space and time consist of linear "dimensions", of bipolar "directions", by which every conscious entity immersed in it divides reality. (And I've been expressing the functions and attitudes themselves as divisions of reality). Space has three (randomly accessible, again), and time has one, which is one way.

So Se is basically what you experience in the immediate environment, as you look out into any of the three dimensions of space. Again, the visual and audial waves, olfactory particles, and gustatory and tactile contact.

Si is the same spatial data, but stored individually in memory.

So Ne then involves what you experience when following the chain of occurrences when looking through the dimension of time. Its inferences occur along this time line (in the environment). Hence, what "could" happen. Also, following past patterns, and continuing their trajectories to get a sense of what will happen. (Of course, things along the way can change the outcome, and so Ne has to remain "open").

So then Ni also looks at the dimension of time, but its inferences do not come from the timeline, but rather from the individual, which is the unconscious. This is the domain of the "archetypal" (images that are collective, and not tied directly to our external experience), and what do we often describe archetypal images as? "Timeless"! (meaning pervasive through time; not on our individual timeline of experience).

Recall, Bruzon (“Fundamental Nature of MBTI”) describes N as the “motion” component (represented as a whole grid) while S was the “static” objects on the grid. Motion of course implies time.
N overall deals with patterns that can be abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another, transferring the acquired patterns to new contexts, in order to get the gist of a subject. Ne attempts to understand a situation (or otherwise disparate external elements) in terms of a pattern (the larger arrangement that give them meaning; and also "stored in memory"), while Ni begins with and looks outside of the pattern (the existing arrangement of elements) and infers what's being left out; what it doesn't it into account. Both Ne and Ni grasp a pattern that two otherwise disparate situations have in common, and gambles that the new situation is going to operate in the same general way as the one already known, but Ne simply looks along time at the motion component (whether temporal, spatial, or just mental) of the pattern to make the "guess", while Ni references the archetypal images to gain something more like a "hunch".

So Ne's patterns "stored in memory" by which it actually does its looking down through the dimension of time is precisely what makes it work with its opposite tandem mate, Si (giving that otherwise "spacelike" function a timelike element). Hence, both are associated in the new "Intentional Styles" model, with "Inquiring"; which is basically going mentally through (e) time (N) to access previous (i) spatial experience (S).
Se's immediate (e) space (S) orientation then works with Ni's immediate "outside (i) the [timelike(N)] pattern" awareness, and hence are called "Realizing".

I should point out that S as “spatial” awareness differs from what's called “visual and spatial logic”, which is connected with the “right brain” of the “P” preference (PeJi), and is mentioned in Lenore's book, p.73-4.

“Spatial logic” just means that we all have the ability to map our environment in our heads, to recognize landmarks, to adjust ourselves to changes in the pattern.
For P types, this is their introverted judgment making its internal “models” of what's desired or correct. For left brain J types, extraverted judgment is cultivated by culture and is “local”, serving the needs of the environment and preserving the institutions it needs to survive, rather than individual needs. (So this also corresponds to fellow BTi theorist Bruzon's “wide”[r] vs “local”[l] area matrix).

“Spatial” awareness I'm using to refer to the continua the perception draws from to begin with.

This may help clarify what we mean by “consciousness” altogether. (Recall, it's used for both S vs N and i vs e).
We are only conscious of one instant of time, at a time. This is “spacelike”. On a Minkowski spacetime diagram, a 2D grid has the vertical dimension used to represent time, and horizontal as all three dimensions of space. A vertical line is someone sitting in one point in space, just moving through all points of time. Slight angles from the vertiale are regular movements in space as time progresses. A horizontal line is all points of space in one instant of time. From this, some imagine a four dimensional version of this diagram, called a "block universe", where all of the universe's history is represented in a static fourth dimension axis through which the "world lines" of all the 3D objects in space are carved. (We can create a scaled down model of this by adding another horizontal dimension to the Minkowski diagram, so that there's two dimensions of space, and one of time).
What we perceive as time is formed from a single slice of the block that moves up from frame to frame (as in a film). This is how "consciousness" can be represented. (Some versions of this have the future being created as it moves up. Others see "cause and effect"; including what causes the apparent "free will" of sapient beings, predetermining the future, thus the whole block exists all along, and we can only see what plays out as the slice of 'consciousness' reaches it).

So we can see the three dimensions of space, (and experience the other senses through them as well). Anything past or future is not conscious. We can't readily experience it. We can only wait for it to happen, or "remember" it if it's already happened.

Remembering is the process associated with the introverted version of Sensing. Though technically generating time, it is still ultimately spacelike as it is basically simply a record of all the spacelike “slices” of spacetime that have already passed. It forms a “pattern” of what has actually occurred, in space. (Note, it deals more with the FORMing of the pattern, via spacelike elements, not really perceiving the whole pattern itself, as carved out in time; though we do often then put together particular individual events making up an overall pattern, but at that point, the perspective is really switching from S to N, and keep in mind, the functions are basically intertwined).
Its specifically timelike tandem-mate extraverted iNtuition is the one that then takes these patterns, focusing on the timelike dimension they are formed in, and attempts to extend them to the future (or sometimes even the past, if it is not known. It still draws on other patterns already known). These patterns consist of “instants” that ONCE WERE conscious, put together into a sort of “conscious” but intangible “object“ in a timelike “environment”.
Si simply looks back through time, while Ne actually works with the objects (patterns) carved out in time. In both cases, an "inquiry" is made, to square away a conscious and unconscious element of the perception.

So Si is unconscious [i] perception of what [was] conscious [S]. (Internal body sensations which are also associated with Si are immediate and thus technically “conscious”, but since they are so internal, they too are associated with an unconscious "familiarity").
Ne is conscious [e] perception of what's not [N; at least, yet] conscious.
{introversion of any function involves memory, while extraversion is “real world”; hence “conscious”}.

Se is of course conscious [e] perception of what currently IS conscious [S](meaning experience-able by everyone, in the environment). Ni is unconscious [i] perception of what's not [N] conscious (just like your individual memory, unconscious impressions such as archetypal images [which span time], and hunches [of what will happen or be revealed in time] are not experienced by the environment, but only the individual. Thus, it's not the patterns lying in the environment of time —which anyone in the actual environment can also be made to see, that are the primary focus of the perception, but rather instant or timeless impressions of the timelike patterns).
Both consciousness of conscious elements, and unconsciousness of unconscious elements are simply "realized" (without further necessary inquiry), due to the congruence of consciousness. (So Ni doesn't seem to have a spacelike element the way Si seems timelike, but what resembles spatial awareness in Ni is its immediacy, which is what makes it seem like some form of "sixth sense", like it draws from an imaginary "space").

(With the judgment functions, consciousness or unconsciousness is only about the attitude:
Je is judgment of what's "right" based on standards conscious to the environment
Ji is judgment of what's right" based on standards that are not conscious to the environment, and often subconscious to the individual).

So examples of how common N products deal in time as opposed to S dealing in space:

Typology; patterns of behavior observed through time.

Numbers: represent hypothetical sensate objects in space (like if we see three groups of three items, and we know the total is really nine objects sitting in space), but when we begin representing them with numerals and operator symbols, we have turned them into ideas that only work through time.

The terms “implications”/"inferences”, in addition to “conceptual”, “ideational”, “mental constructs”, “filling in”, "intangible" etc. point through time (which is intangible in the moment) via the mental ideation and constructing and filling in processes used to become aware of them.

“The big picture” also, is in practice timelike, as it's something that “comes together" or basically revealed in time. Ni deals with an existing "big picture" by "filling it in" from the images of the unconscious. Ne forms its sense of the "big picture" by putting together the "objective" patterns, stored in memory, filling in the patterns with fitting elements of each other. Both the "putting together" and "memory" are technically "internal", to the "subject", which is what made this confusing; but it is in the dimension of time, not space, that they are external objects!

In each case, space and time are the corresponding “environments” that define the extraverted perspective. Introversion, (just like the stereotypical picture of an “introvert”) withdraws from this, to the individual perspective, to conjure up images either of spatial reality, or temporal patterns.

Likewise, as might figure more, T deals in "things" and F with "people".

Te deals with the environment of things, and Ti references an internal model of things
Fe deals with environments of people, and Fi references an internal model of people (what affects them)

so overall, it's divided as:
space—time—things—people = the environment of reality
tangible—potential—mechanical—anthropic = our immersion in reality

Deeper definition of attitudes

When discussing the archeypes; I've been pointing out that these are really what are called "ego states", which are lesser senses of "I" under the ego, which are what carry the other functions below the dominant. This concept is from an Austrian psychologist Paul Federn, who articulated a “Two Energy Theory” that basically corresponds to the attitudes. This can be read about in the book Ego States: Theory and Therapy, John G. and Helen H. Watkins, W. W. Norton & Company, New York, 1997. The technical term he gave for the "flow" of energy or "libido" that in Jung's theory defines the attitudes is "cathexis". Things can be either "ego cathected", where we experience them as part of ourselves, and project them outward onto other people or objects, which are then filtered through the subjective view, or "object cathected" where we see them as "not me", but nevertheless take them in (introject), where they bcome "internal objects", that(according to Jung), the subject merges himself with.

So to apply this to the functions (starting with Feeling, which deals directly with the "human" aspect of the ego):

Fi: Those are my feelings I see in the other person ("good" or "bad"). Let me respond as I would want to be responded to
Fe: Those are not my feelings, but let me take them as my own ("good" or "bad") and respond to what they are expressing
Ti: Those are my thoughts, ("correct"; take as confirmation) or not my thoughts ("incorrect"; ignore or fix)
Te: Those are not my thoughts, but let me take them as my own ("correct", and whatever doesn't carry the same weight is "incorrect").

(We can see there, for Feeling, the judgment is determined directly by the emotional state of self or others, while for Thinking, it's about matching one thought with another).

Si: That's my experience; let me instruct others accordingly. If it's not my experience, I'll be slow to trust it
Se: That's not my experience; let me take it as my own, anew (even if I've taken it on before)
Ni: That's my image of potential outcomes or the big picture, let me find a way to inform others from it
Ne: That's not my image of potential outcomes or the big picture (it's implied by the object itself), but let me take it as my own

Jung's concept of "abstraction", was actually associated with introversion rather than intuition, as it is commonly used! (Which was probably more of Myers' and Keirsey's use. This is why I have been using "conceptual" instead of "abstract" for N). Likewise, "empathy" is associated with all functional extraversion, and not just extraverted Feeling.

You can see these here:

Abstraction http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/a/#abstraction

A form of mental activity by which a conscious content is freed from its association with irrelevant elements, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. Therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object.

Empathy http://www.nyaap.org/jung-lexicon/e/#empathy

An introjection of the object, based on the unconscious projection of subjective contents. Empathy presupposes a subjective attitude of confidence, or trustfulness towards the object. It is a readiness to meet the object halfway. The man with the empathetic attitude finds himself in a world that needs his subjective feeling to give it life and soul. He animates it with himself.

It seems to be a more deeply technical way of expressing i/e that can help further clarify what exactly the differences between function attitudes are.

Under this definition:
Se: merges with the tangible environment
Si: frees tangible environment from association with irrelevant elements. (By storing pertinent facts)
Ne: merges with conceptual content (ego introjects self-visualized possibilities into environment)
Ni: frees conceptual content from association with irrelevant elements (zeroes in on most likely possibilities).
Te: merges with technical aspect of situations (ego's goals are logical efficiency)
Ti: frees technical content from its association with irrelevant elements (by focusing on particular frameworks).
Fe: merges with humane environments
Fi: frees humane content from association with irrelevant elements (by focusing on internal universal values).

Further simplified:

Se what I can objectively add to what is tangible
Si what I can subjectively subtract from what is tangible
Ne what I can objectively add to its conceptual trajectory
Ni what I can subjectively subtract from its conceptual trajectory
Te what I can objectively add to what it is technically
Ti what I can subjectively subtract from what it is technically
Fe what I can objectively add to its humane worth
Fi what I can subjectively subtract from its humane worth

For examples of how this works, using Sensing, the extraverted Sensor sees an emerging situation, and simply adds himself to it. This then is why they tend to be into physical activity, fun and adventure, etc.
The introverted Sensor stands back, and compares the situation to what he has internalized as familiar with. He remembers through his own prior experience, or even learned documentation (statistics, news reports, etc) what is safe or not, and approaches the activity more cautiously as he holds on to what he thinks is most relevant (safety, etc) and subtracts from that everything else (such as trust that the guy who just jumps into things "must" know what's he's doing because nothing bad has happened yet).

The extraverted iNtuitor sees emergent data in terms of conceptual meanings. Adding himself to the object, he sees multiple possibilities of where the data or object can go.
The introverted iNtuitor stands back and separates out of the possibilities the ones most likely according to internal impressions from the unconscious. I've had to learn this is why they are often skeptical of a lot of ideas, like some of the ones I toss around, and seemingly just to be skeptical.

The extraverted Thinker merges with an object in the form of organizing it for logical efficiency.
the introverted Thinker will subtract from the possible forms of organization things that do not match his subjective sense of the way things should be, or universal principles. Like for me, it's something like symmetry (more below).

The extraverted Feeler of course merges directly with a group of people socially, taking on its values, and interjecting (adding) their own action and emotional investment to support them.
The introverted Feeler subtracts from these values the ones that are more universal among human need. He is aware of this from being in touch with his own feelings about things.

Here's how it appears to work with the dominant/inferior "spine" tandems (using my type):

Ti: free technical content from its association with irrelevant elements. Value is transferred from the object to the now subjective content (internalized "impersonal" frameworks).

This is unconsciously compensated by:
Fe: humane content is then entrusted to the object (A subjective attitude of trust is then introjected into other people or social values).

(In normal situations, Fe sees the value, Ti abstracts the values away that do not compute).

Introverts make this transfer from the object to the subject. Their inner world is what they prefer, and the outer world is where they are less confident. So the dominant function with which they are most confident is introverted, and the inferior function is extraverted. This makes a lot of sense, naturally. The irrelevant element in an introverted perspective is the set (external) standard or object. Focusing on what's relevant naturally produces variable elements.

One might wonder why extraverts make the transfer from the subject to the object. Why would their ego not want to favor its own subjective realm?
I find that it seems to tie into concepts such as "identification" and "participation mystique" (Definitions available on Jung Lexicon). These involve the merging of the subject with the object. To them the object is what they identify with. And as the quote says, his subjective feeling is simply what he uses to give the outer world life.
So then, the inner world in its own right is the untrusted realm.

So while their ego entrusts the object with their preferred functional content, it is the internal world that is suppressed, and used to collect the other functions (again, until the Puer reorients the tertiary to the external). The inferior complex maintains the internal orientation, of course.

More on "add/subtract" definitions of e/i function-attitudes

Here I will match these definitions of the function attitudes with Berens' simple key word definitions (which are basically true, but can become overgeneralized and ambiguous when not understood in the proper context). This to show how the concepts relate:

Se experiencing and acting in the immediate context
adding to what is tangible

Something is happening (emergent situation) and you add yourself to it, as is.

Si reviewing and recalling past experiences and seeking detailed data
subtracting from what is tangible

You've experienced a lot of things, and hold on to what is relevent for what you need for your goals, and eliminate everything else.

This is good to know, for when I expect SJ's (including even dom's) to remember certain things, and they don't. (which would seem to call into question their type, like for my wife, who seemed to identify with Se more then Si based on the simple "experiencing" vs "remembering" definitions, and appeared to possibly be the Se-"using" ENFJ or ESFP types rather than ESFJ).

However, what they remember is what is relevant (not just anything), and usually with a more serious purpose (hero, parent complexes), where to me, stuff less relevant to them (petty nostalgia) might be remembered, because Si is connected with a "child" or "relief" complex for me. So they will either not remember something, or they might (as they do have good memories), yet it will be like "Oh, yeah; that..."). It is remembered, but not relevant. (When it comes to holding on to relevant subtractions from tangible data, my wife is actually a very typical stickler for that!)

Ne Interpreting situations and relationships and picking up meanings and interconnections to other contexts
adding to an object's conceptual trajectory

I see an object, and basically interject myself into it with ideas of how else it can be, what can be done with it, etc.

Ni foreseeing implications, transformations, and likely effects
subtracting from an object's conceptual trajectory

To see an object, as well as multiple possibilities with it (hence, confusion with Ne definitions), and be able to recognize and eliminate what is not relevant, which will narrow it down to a likely outcome.

Te segmenting, organizing for efficiency, and systematizing
adding to what it is technically

You merge with the technical content of an object, which results in a most efficient course of action with it. Like the example I've used; you would effectively "merge" with a desk that is messy, and the ego's natural recourse then' is to organize it efficiently.

Ti Analyzing, categorizing and evaluating according to principles
subtracting from 'what it is' technically.

Like when I see something, and always extract a particular arrangement out of it (I'm avoiding "pattern", because that's usually associated with iNtuition).

Like I love mirror symmetries, and usually look for them in both visual and conceptual constructs. My grandmother used to live in this garden apt. building Google Maps which consists of four quadrants (two of which, attached in the e/w direction), so to look across the court in any direction is like looking in a mirror. Straight across (either the attached or unattached quadrant) is a reverse version of the quadrant I'm looking for. The quadrant on the opposite side in both directions is a double negative that yields something identical to the quadrant I'm in; though rotated 180°.

I would sit and look out the window admiring this, but it was "useless" in a practical sense, and no one else was really interested in it. (Here's another one I used to live near, and always liked. Google Maps The attachment is now in the n/s direction).

Forward to recent years, I find that temperament theory is like an abstract version of the same symmetry, with the E/I and people/task dimensions. (With the addition of a fifth "neutral" element directly in center). This now is more useful, both for myself understanding people, and with the internet now, I can find others who are interested. (In my SJ environment, without the internet, I would have been in the same boat as before).

As Jung conceived it, what was "subtracted" was what was NOT relevant, but you could look at it either way. (Hence, you could call the process "splitting", while in extraverted function is about "merging"). I focus on the content relevant to my own subjective likes (symmetry), and everything else becomes irrelevant (like practical uses, efficiency etc. which become secondary).

(This should also show that "liking" is a product of the ego, and not necessarily "Fi". If the content were more humane, it would be, but here, it is purely technical, or "impersonal")

Of course, the "principles" are those elements I look for in things. "Categorizing" would also stem from common threads in different seen as relevant. Like to most people, "a building is a building", but I had taken notice that buildings like those are very hard to find outside of NYC. This based on the age (pre-war), design, etc.
All of this is irrelevant or at least less relevant to most people but it makes these categories stand out to me in a way they don't to others.

Fe Connecting and considering others and the group
adding to humane worth

This one is simple. You add yourself to or merge with a group, and its values. Hence, if you see someone has a want or need, you "consider" them.

Fi valuing and considering importance, beliefs and worth
subtracting from its humane worth

You look at values (of a group, or those involved in an evolving situation) and recognize and eliminate those variables not relevant. Like a group might agree to do something that hurts another, and even justify it with some form of moralization. This veneer of moralization can be removed (subtracted, split off), and the real needs of the people (even if "unspoken") are brought out and focused on.

So Fi can "consider others" as well as Fe, the difference is whether you do it by adding to the object in need, or by subtracting the deeper needs from the surface data of the object.

To expand this to the unpreferred archetype positions, using my type:

tert Si: compensates for adding to 'where it's going' conceptually by subtracting from 'what it is' tangibly

inferior Fe: compensates for subtracting from 'what it is' technically by adding to its humane worth

OP Te: when dominant subjective subtraction from 'what it is' technically is obstructed; then I add subjective content to it instead.

Senex Ni: when [authoritative] adding to 'where it's going' conceptually is negated, then I subtract all but a particular negative destiny instead.

Trickster Se: when a process of subtracting from 'what it is' tangibly feels bound, I then add to the content, to bind others. Also fills in for adding to 'where it's going' conceptually, when it cant solve a problem.

Demon Fi: when adding to humane worth is threatened, I then subtract instead to destroy the threat. Also fills in for subtracting from 'what is' technically, when it can't solve a problem.

The difference between e and i can also be looked at as processes of "merging vs splitting".

Some points on functions from John Beebes new book, Energies and Patterns in Psychological Type (2016)

Basic function definitions:

Sensing:
According to Jung, S “registers reality as real“. (p147 Then, of course, T “defines for us” what we are perceiving “is” there, and F “assigns a value” to it).

Intuition:
connected with time; that things have a past and a future, and thus “come from somewhere and go to somewhere, and you cannot see where they came from and you cannot know where they go to, but you get what Americans call a hunch”. Beebe concludes “the ability to get, and to a certain degree to trust, the hunch is what Jung meant by intuition“. “Intuitives” are “people who are naturally disposed to use their intuition to orient themselves to reality“. (Where the S, again, only appeals to “reality” itself). So this function “divine[s] the implications or possibilities of the thing that has been empirically perceived, logically defined, and discriminatingly evaluated”.

Feeling:
The difference between “Feeling” and “feelings” (emotion) is that Feeling is “the function that sorts out feelings”. Or, to quote someone named Willeford, the function that “discriminates affect”. (p10)

“Feeling is often (even by Jung) spoken as if it were a synonym for valuing, but it is not only function associated with making a valuation; it is merely the function that places the highest premium on the psychological act of assigning value.” (p211)

Functions in general:
Frames things in terms of “thinking”, “feeling, “sensation”, or “intuitive” “problems", and that dreams reveal to us “the actual situation in the unconscious” (Jung) which we can then actually ‘type‘ as T, F, S or N “situations“. (p25)

The attitudes; introversion and extraversion

"In meeting a situation that involves another person, extraversion moves to create a shared experience, by reaching out to ‘merge’ in some way with the other person (Shapiro & Alexander, 1975), whereas introversion steps back from the experience to see if it ‘matches an archetype within that carries an a priori understanding of what an experience like this is supposed to consist of" (p. 43 emphasis added)

Introversion in particular:
(Citing Psychological Types), is dependence “on the idea, which shields him from external reality and gives him the feeling of inner freedom”. The term “idea” is used to “express the meaning of a primordial image, that is to say, an archetype. An introverted function, therefore, is one that has turned away from the object and toward the archetypal ‘idea’ that the object might be closely matched to. This archetypal idea, residing in the inner world, can be understood as a profound thought, a value, a metaphorical image, or a model of reality”, depending on the respective introverted function being T, F, N or S, and when orienting something external, “it is in the end, the comparison to the archetype, not the stimulating object of situation itself, that finally commands the attention of the function“.

To translate: an image of “true/false”, “good/bad” (as he elaborates on further, below), an image (i.e. “an image of an image", and there we see Ni’s “meta-perspective” again!), or “what is”.

Introversion when used consciously, is not as easy to discriminate, and thus the functions are easily confused with each other. (p206)

The function-attitudes:

Introverted:

Si:
Si “lives on the inside of the body, and seeks to keep it from getting overstimulated, too tired, too hungry, or too filled with the wrong foods. etc.” (p32) Si “empirical observation of other is used to enhance the experience of self” (p213)

Ni:
"unconscious images acquire the dignity of things” (Jung). It naturally “apprehends the images rising from the a priori inherited foundations of the unconscious” (where Ne’s images arise from looking at objects), and thus rather than thinking about, experimentally comparing, or feeling the archetype that arises in relation to a situation, Ni “becomes directly aware of the archetype as an image, as if ‘seeing’ it”. Later, (p.184, citing Jung) it “peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image”, and is “directed to the inner image”, and observes “how the picture changes, unfolds and finally fades” (and is the consciousness most consistently devalued in contemporary Western culture).

Ti:
“the ideas introverted thinking dwells on…are notions that may either be sui generis, or if once cultural, long out of circulation, which may seem entirely appropriate to the exact definition of a situation at hand, since they fit better than the currently accepted dictates of extraverted Thinking. These ‘new’ thoughts however, take effort to explain, and the introverted thinking function frequently goes on refining its conceptions when the patience of others has been exhausted: it does not know when to stop.”

(What comes to mind for me, is liking the older idea of the pinnipeds as a separate suborder of carnivore, making a trio of “cat form”, “dog form” and “seal form”, though empirical science has more recently concluded it is really part of the greater dog suborder. It still seems different enough from and equally similar enough to both the felids and canids to be separate, making a nice triplicity. Or disputing Keirsey on having NF as Choleric and NT as Phlegmatic. This obvious didn’t fit the image I had of the temperament matrix, as the NF’s behavior seemed more low in expressiveness and high in responsiveness, where the classic Choleric temperament is the opposite. Metrical symmetry is a primordial archetype, being it’s what mathematics [number theory] relies on, and can be seen in visual reflections, and reflections of reflections).

Fi:
described as as “very sensitive to imbalances of power” (p55), and "discriminating the appropriate and inappropriate uses of power”, which “is something people with strong introverted feeling are good at”.

When Fi feels “bad”, “it is feeling the entire archetypal category of ‘bad’” p173, and that Fi “works art the archetypal (not personal) level, compels us to feel the rightness or wrongness of images” p221). So this shows that “archetypes can be felt every bit as much as they can be thought about, directly intuited or experienced somatically”. Jung stated “Fundamental ideas, like God, freedom and immortality, are just as much feeling-values as they are significant ideas."

He would later describe Fi as working “at the archetypal (not personal) level".

“Perhaps we all get into our introverted feeling when we are depressed”. For people with shadow Fi, depression, reaction to imbalances of power, and other forms of subjective valuation will be common experiences to them, but not connected with any specific typological state, unless those shadow complexes happen to be constellated. (For me, this is borne of experiences where the ego is felt to be in jeopardy of destruction, which is what constellates the "demonic" complex).

Extraverted functions:

Fe:
involves the “feelings—that is, the emotions and prejudices—of others, and often society at large” (it also “seeks concrete gratitude and validation”).

Te:
“tends to become enamored of established ideas, frequently neglecting the duty to think freshly about what is being expressed”, so that “there is no brake, against insisting that these ideas should given everyone’s behavior”, and be made [Jung]: “into the ruling principle not only for himself, but for his whole environment”.

Se:
can be so “in the moment” in the reality “out there”, that it might not recognize other things that may be going on, or “notice that someone is about to say or do something unexpected”. (I didn’t realize this about Se. p.185 also describes it: “objects are valued in so far as they can excite sensations the sole criterion of their value is the intensity of the sensation produced by their objective qualities”).

Ne:
compared to a traffic signal, with a red, yellow and green aspects, telling us to proceed, proceed with caution or stop. Other types “may not perceive the presence of any signal at all and thus cannot understand why the person led by such intuitions is rushing ahead, stopping or pausing when he does”. Of course, it’s true that the perspective’s “failure to heed sensation cues can undermine its claim to have ‘seen’ anything at all”.

Deciphering Ni, and the difference from Ne (and Si)

Both Ne and Ni are associated with "connections", and it often becomes hard to tell which is which from the definitions. But Ne's connections between different things would be like my attempts to connect together different personality typing systems according to corresponding elements. These elements (such as factors and temperaments) would be the external objects being focused on. The connections between them are likewise external (such as different systems having analogues to "extroversion"). Ni's connections are deeper and harder to pin down, but would involve elements such as "meanings" that underlie the surface parts.

Like I could think of looking at one personality instrument that I think is very good, but also hear about the general reputation of the organization behind it in people's perception, and then fear that the instrument will fizzle out in the future. Other instruments are more popular, and will likely continue to succeed. So this ties into a sense of an "underdog" struggling to survive, but the popular and powerful prevail.
I'm looking at that instrument, its organization, its competitors (which are more popular), and then people's perceptions, plus symbolizing a principle in life; and all of these factors seem to be pointing to a particular outcome. I also have a lot of unrelated things in life I have assigned symbols for and found that the corresponding points seem to match quite well, especially involving crossing timelike things such as music, with spacelike things such as places. This often comes up as using changes in space to point towards hope in negative situations in time, or vice versa. The negatives are also sometimes extracted from a sense of underlying meaning in events. These connections are purely internal. (These common archetypal patterns are initially unconscious, only providing the negative sense from the background, and then later externalized as "objective" patterns I can look at and name).

In short, inasmuch as both forms of iNtuition deal with "inferring" (even though Berens associated it with Ne only), Ne is inferring a pattern from the object (often in comparison of another external pattern), and Ni is inferring from an internalized (subjective) impression, used to find out "what's left out" of an external pattern.

When we explore alternative possibilities in the environment, we are engaging in external intuition. When we look at on one of them, and fill in its "possibilities" from within, we are internalizing the intuition process. (It should at this juncture be pointed out, that "possibilities" is often associated with Ne only, but really, all four perception attitudes deal in possibilities in different ways. As mentioned, Se looks at possibilities as what can be exploited based on what is. The N attitudes are about what is not necessarily what's there, and you either gauge this from other objects, or from within. Si, then looks at possibilities, according to what has been exploited in previous experience or common knowledge, rather than emergent data).
When we make connections between objects based on properties of the objects, it is external intuition, for the aspects of the objects we are connecting are external to us. When we connect things using images from the unconscious, it is internal; for our own unconscious is of course internal.

Ne is inferring a pattern from the object (i.e. What this means as a pattern), and Ni is inferring from an internalized (subjective) portion of the unconscious (i.e. What's been left out of a [given] pattern, existing now, as an internal intuition).
An example I was given was looking at a map and realizing that something important exists beyond the frame. Whatever it is, it isn't drawn yet on the map; which just ends there. So the task is to locate within some sense of what's missing and find a way to bring it to language that others can hear and understand. Lenore had said “For INJ’s, the patterns aren’t ‘out there’ in the world, waiting to be discovered. They’re part of us [i.e. internal]—the way we make sense of the riot of information and energy impinging on our systems.” (p.225). I believe what this is saying is that what lies "beyond the map" for instance represents patterns that are inside of us, and thus knowable, but are not conscious, and thus will only come up as "hunches" or perhaps as imagery (needing interpretation), which may be ignored by most types. Dreams are another familiar source of this information.

When I first read that, I tried for a handy description coming up with the idea of a "template" (memorized patterns including stuff like archetypal stories, especially with "the archetypal" often described as an Ni product), but I had mistaken the "patterns are part us" description as ones stored in conscious memory, which that would fall into. But this is actually Ne, because what you're remembering is something external; not originally apart of you, but only taken in. (And that function thus works in tandem with Si).
So when I was given the map example, I thought of two streets that are converging when the map ends, and figuring they must meet (but then realizing they might not). But that is still looking at the object [in this case, the map], and thus Ne. I then reference other patterns of streets similar to that, and if they converge, they will likely meet. But then, maybe not; one could end first, so you really have to gamble on a guess. (The internal aspect of this has to rely on the "correct"— according to individual deduction judgment, of Ti. And Si would represent remembering the similar scenarios of other streets, or perhaps seeing the next map itself, and thus knowing what was there anyway, while Se would represent getting the next map and just looking at it directly).

Ni in this case is just going by the "hunch" (regardless of where the streets on the current map seem to be heading). That hunch could come from anywhere. Perhaps once seeing the next map, or being there, or being told, or and long forgetting it; not able to quite put a finger on it. It's now unconscious, and falls beyond Si's use of memory. So the person won't be able to say they consciously "remember" it; instead they will say something more like they "just know". While I would usually be reluctant to trust something like that (and thus, this did not even figure as an actual "function", and what this one called "Ni" was), NJ's will trust it more.
This analogy will only carry so far, as a map is a tangible item, but Ni is generally used to fill in conceptual ones (including what can be extracted from tangible events). So an Ni type looking at a map might just as likely as anyone else have no way to figure what is on the next map. The "subject" in this case, is the unconscious itself. (Which can be either "personal" or "collective", which is in common with everyone else. The collective version is where "archetypes" actually lie, even before we [consciously] make stories out of them).

Hence, NTJ's I have seen will be more likely to tend to be skeptical about the ideas NP's toss around. (With NT in general being characterized as "skeptical"; the J variant will be, even moreso). Someone like me will throw out an idea (like something involving temperament theory), and they seem to start with some preconceived bias against it, and want to pick holes in it. For some reason, they just "know" those ideas are wrong, and something else is likely right. (If another NTP is skeptical, it's usually because they've simply adopted another logical framework they give their allegiance to, since their preferred introverted perspective is [rational] Thinking. Both will give their technical, conceptual arguments for why they believe something else is true, but from what I've seen, the NTJ will focus more on what he's against, than what he's for).

So just as you can experience a current event in the environment, just for what it is, which is Se; or abstract a new meaning from it through other patterns in the environment, which would be Ne; you can also look back at an event, just for what it was (individually through memory), which is Si, or abstract significance from it in the form of things such as these impressions (individually from the unconscious), which would be Ni. While Ne started from an external focal point, and then branched out multiple possibilities from it, Ni has been described as the opposite; starting out with multiple objects, and then converging the possibilities to one [internal, known only to you] focal point, which might be a likely [future] outcome. (Hence, the orientation of iNtuition can be determined by where this focal point lies).

I recently read one INFJ's experience of "images" that come up, and that "life feels like an ongoing tidal wave of intangible, unverifiable information".
The way I understand it now, backed up by that example, is that these images are [in fact] coming up all the time. I basically tune them out, unless they happen to fit some external pattern I may be thinking of. So I never even thought of them as the products of one of these "functions", and hence why it took so long to really understand what Ni is.

For her, they'll come up like that, and naturally, they'll also come up when deliberately called to inform some data (like an existing pattern you're presented with), and hence, [actively] "search[ing] within".

This is what really needs clarification, for this is the point where it's so easy to get thrown off (as to which function is which). I'll "look within" to memory, for a fitting pattern, but that's really Si internalizing an Ne external pattern. It's not the same as what she's describing that already comes up, directly from within (seeming out of nowhere, not pulled from somewhere else), and not conscious memory.

This further verifies Berens/Montoya's new terms "Realizing" and "Inquiring". Both Si and Ne end up relying more on memory, and thus also end up "inquiring" (asking questions) in order to either match to what's known, or look for other possibilities. Se on the other hand, simply takes whatever's there in the material world. Ni takes whatever comes up from the unconscious. Neither try to compare it with anything else (so again, it will be the judgment function that does that). So they both directly "realize" things.

Se=environmental material awareness (direct sensations)
Si=individually referenced material awareness (though memorized sensations)
Ne=environmentally referenced hypothetical awareness (external hypotheses, often memorized)
Ni=individually conjured hypothetical awareness (images that come up directly from the unconscious).

If they hadn't come up with those terms, I may have just named Ne/Si in terms of "memory", and Se/Ni in terms of "meta" (which often gets associated with Ni alone, but Se fits the term in its more tangible way. Or, perhaps, "direct". I had once tried "circumspective", meaning "looks around", instead of "memory". I was on to the right idea, but had trouble naming the other tandems).

On the other hand, someone asked what was really "environmental" about Ne definition, where "individual’s images never matched environment, but are still based on the environment (and thus can possibly be perceived by others)", in contrast the Ni's images being individual. That actually was what was sort of tripping me up, until I just recently solved it with the concepts of "images" and especially "time as the 'environment' of N".

So let's use my clearest example of Ne; how the systems fit together.
I compare and then begin finding several connections, and then begin sharing them. Other people can see the connections I'm making. They may not feel like trying to grasp it all, or may not agree with everything, or still have things that don't make sense to them, but they can clearly see the parallels that I'm pointing out. Because the theories, and their elements (factors, functions, types, temperaments, etc.) are all basically, external "objects", already existing in the environment. (And that "environment" is time; through which human behavior patterns they are describing play out). They are not images anyone of us here conjured up from within. So the connections I make (which are abstract, and thus "unconscious" in a way, they have to be made, intangibly) are all there, waiting to be shown to others.

I find that Beren's "philosophy of life" descriptions also holds a key for completely cracking this confusion of Ni with Ne.

Ne: There are always other perspectives and new meanings to discover
Ni: There is always a future to realize and a significance to be revealed.

"Revealed" basically means "uncovered". So it's a matter of UNcovered versus DIScovered. They sound synonymous, but there really is a difference.

un- prefix of reversal (from PIE *anti "facing opposite, near, in front of, before")
dis- "do the opposite of" (from PIE *dis- "apart, asunder")

"uncover" or "reveal" implies that something was covered, and now we're reversing this.
For "discover", the object is not necessarily covered to begin with. It's just not known about, and instead of covering it, so it remains unknown, we're doing the opposite of covering it, and making people aware of it.

So "discover" reflects Ne's external focus, of meanings that are implicit in the object, yet are being made known to observers by the subject relaying the information. "uncover/reveal" reflects Ni's internal focus, where a subject picks up a significance that has apparently been covered, and now reverses this by applying it to the various objects involved.

Also, we have new meanings vs significance.
When I compare MBTI with the other temperament matrices, I first see that both include introversion and extroversion. So if they share that in common, I then wonder if MBTI has any counterpart to the other temperament factor of people/task. I eventually find that the factor corresponds to both T/F and J/P. So now, I "discover" this new (to everyone else) meaning of the T/F and J/P factors. The connection is already implicit in those external objects, but now instead of covering it up like it doesn't exist; I'm doing the opposite.

Ni is about significance, which is really a subjective thing, not directly implicit in the object.
In the forest analogy, the template would be what the forest was said to be symbolic of. Life's interconnectedness, which includes recycling. Things are created, then destroyed, and new things are created from the, Hence, the replacement of forest with a housing development (possibly with materials made from the forest!) will play out this pattern.

The "underdog loses out to the big and powerful" I mentioned above is another example. Likewise, I can remember being real young, and taken to the beach. It was an exciting new adventure; but IIRC falling into the water, and it was very scary and traumatizing. Later, going to a pool, I was pushed in. Going under water for me is very scary. So I had this sense of danger regarding beaches and pools.

Years later, I catch the Brady Bunch episode where they go on vacation in Hawaii. I remember it was a very exciting event for them, and it seemed like it would be a great time. But then, these negative events start happening. I remember the hideous spider attack in the room. And then, the older brother wiped out in the surf, and was thought to be dead. There was this looming sense of a curse, from the Tiki they encountered.

Now this was not even my experience. It was fictional. Yet it tied to experiences I had, and formed what I'm calling a "template". A sort of situational counterpart to an archetype. I could name it like an archetype; such as "Hawaii-Bound" after the episode (though that title is not really descriptive enough). It also parallels Christ's statement "those who shall save their lives shall lose it", or "When they shall say 'peace and safety', then shall come sudden destruction". Again, when we think things are so well, all horror breaks loose. So I could call it "Peace and Safety".

This would form a mental background future events would be engaged against. They then take on a significance. Like I cut my finger really bad on a family outing to a beachside resort, on a 104° day in a hotel with no A/C, but the windows painted shut from when there were A/C's. This seemed to fall right into this template, though I probably wasn't even thinking directly about the Brady Bunch episode. It was just this background sense of things being "too good" on the way to the outing, and thus something go horribly wrong.
Another template is based on Aliens, where they make the exciting discovery of life on another planet, but the guy has the horrible experience with the face-hugger. When it comes off; it seems he is all right, and he tries to move on from that trauma and in somewhat of a daze, get back to normal life by eating with the others. But then, that's when the horror of horrors happens. The alien inside him bursts out. This is what loomed in my mind as I had to walk around in this heat after losing so much blood, and I tried to be OK and get back to normal, but the others were saying I was not completely myself, and almost in a daze. Luckily, no further horror happened after that. Still, it all fit into these templates.

The templates are purely my own in applying to situations; hence, introverted (and also unconscious, until I analyzed them, basically making them external things outside of myself), and yet they do tie into universals (hence, other people using the same concepts), which is also characteristic of introverted functions. Those would be the internal "focal points" of the Ni illustration.
So what ends up happening, is that whenever there is some really exciting event or prospect, I have this back-of-my-mind fear that something really bad is going to happen. (Again, the connection is unconscious at that time). Of course, Ni for me is in the shadow, in the "Senex" or "critical parent" position. It is negative, and very incomplete, and not a good guide at all.

So now we see the basis of Berens' description of Critical Ni for INxP's as "putting a damper on plans for the future with negative thoughts of how things will be". It's based on a sort of negative [unconscious] template. My "good" parent Ne tells me that the negative is only a possibility, but more likely (looking at the external data available so far), things will go all right. Yet for some reason I lock on to this negative possibility. I'm no longer exploring possibilities; now I'm inferring significance. (For the record, since this deals with stressful events, it can likely be seen as a manifestation of the archetype. I otherwise don't usually trust or think much of such a process).

Putting a damper on plans ties into negation (at least for me) by virtue of things being "too good to be true". (Like that part of my psyche feels otherwise negated in life).
The wisdom I do see in this is a reminder of the fleeting nature of life, and that when you think everything is perfect, it really isn't, so one should not put all their hopes on gratification.

For NJ's, this function will be more mature, and they will have more positive uses of it, which will also be more likely to come true, as more indepth, complete interpretations will be created, which will pick up more cues on whether a particular outing really fits into the template that ends in disaster. From what I have heard, many of them have learned to keep this stuff to themselves, being we are in a heavy S[J] society that thinks it's weird. (Ni is at the bottom of their shadow, after all).
I have noticed that the language of Ni types will often be filled with references to fictional stories and proverbs. These spring from the templates Ni plays off of; or more accurately, rather than being original templates themselves, they more likely fit into timeless templates (i.e. universals) that Ni uses fiction and current experience to link all together. ENTP John Beebe also does this a lot, and this would be Ni backing up his dominant Ne (with "parent" Ti), in discussing his theories. He himself has said that the study of archetypes are the domain of Ni.

Ni is often described as dealing with "frameworks", which is a term usually associated with Ti (also making it confusing). But Ti deals with frameworks of judgment, you make decisions with, such as sets of principles. Ni would deal with frameworks of perception, in which you take in new information. I would say all four introverted functions have frameworks. Ti is logical frameworks (called "principles"), Fi is ethical frameworks ("values"), Si is tangible frameworks (i.e. memories of how things should be), and Ni is conceptual frameworks, such as these unconscious templates.

Ni is often confused with Si even, because a person can look at how events play out over and over, and then get a sense of what will happen in the future. However, this can be Si. Looking at how gravity always pulls things down, and then deducing that something you let go of will drop would be Si. It is tangible data. It's the act of creating a template of events that is the process of abstracting (from memories), not just any "foretelling" of the future. It generates a concept.
The whole "Bad things will happen on a fun outing" is not based on tangible facts such as gravity. It is a model pairing together otherwise unrelated events that only share a few details in common, such as going to a fun outing. There is no external element connecting the two to any common negative chain of events. It's all in an internal template, or perhaps 'storyline', if you will. (Again, when it initially occurs. It becomes connected externally upon the analysis of finding an external storyline to fit the connection). Another example is conspiracy theories. In this case, the negative outcome has already occurred, and now you employ a template of conspiracy scheming to "reconstruct" how it "must have been" carried out. (The "blaming" aspect of this will be especially pronounced for those of us with this process as the blaming "critical parent"!)

NOTE: I realize my concept of a "template" still really crosses over to Ne to some extent. Intuition in general deals with the salient points of a pattern that can be abstracted from one situation to give meaning to another, transferring them to new contexts, largely unconsciously, in order to get the gist of a subject; and operating by inferring from a few elements some larger arrangement in which they’re characteristically included. Ne is looking at things "in terms of a pattern, stored in memory" which will be used to compare to other [external] patterns, where Ni will look "outside of the pattern" to fill in what's "missing" from it. So for me, perhaps it's Ne working in tandem with Si, as well, where Ni is not patterns stored in conscious memory, but rather unconscious impressions you can barely put your finger on.
Sorting out Ni is one reason I came up with the simple definition of "S=space; N=time" definition. This allows us to define the "environment" either function operates from, which will define the extraverted attitude; and then from there, it's just a matter of looking "outside" of this environment, to a model that lies within the individual, which would identify the introverted attitude. So N's "environment" is time, with Ne looking through this environment, in which it compares patterns. Ni also looks at the dimension of time, but its inferences are from outside the timeline; rather lying within the individual, via his unconscious.

So I believe the initial negative impressions I got fit this Ni definition; being sometimes (at least) genuinely introverted (and often fitting the “Senex” role, usually involving some issue where I feel my ego is being negated, which is what that complex is about). It doesn't start out comparing to another pattern; it's just this "sense" that comes up from within. But it's then when I begin sorting out what’s what and how the patterns fit ones I’m familiar with (often writing it down in my own ponderings), I’m turning “without”, and making it extraverted, (going from the more “critical” ego state to my natural “supporting” (aux.) one, and with ego’s dom. Ti determining “true/false”, of course). So I'm basically switching back to Ne mode (or more correctly, the "parent/supporting" ego-state) in referencing external patterns as examples (in addition to Ni shadowing Ne for me, and thus being colored by the objective function in that way also).

For one thing, Mark Hunziker in his new book on Beebe's theory, Depth Typology points out what I've noted elsewhere regarding "undifferentiated" functions, that shadow functions “rarely operate as discrete units. More often, they’re confusingly mixed together or form ad hoc alliances". (Kindle location #2638) This, I take it is referring to even when they are attached to the archetype.
This makes sense, and would explain why, when I’m trying to think of examples of Ni, I have to wonder if it’s really Ne. I notice that whenever I think it’s Ni, there’s always some “object” I’m comparing it to, and I figure it must “become” Ne, when I come out of Senex mode and am trying to analyze it with my normal TiNe. But this point here gives another explanation as to why shadow functions are hard to pin down, and can be easily confused with their more conscious counterparts.

So this is another Ni/Ne blurring of the lines that can throw someone off.

This also brings to light the fact that the simplistic descriptions of Ni as "foretelling the future" really do not do the function justice. This is what has made it so hard to figure out all this time. And any person who seems to have some sort of "visions" of the future is automatically made into an NJ type. The templates may give you a sense of what will happen, and you can loosely call them "visions", but they are not glimpses into the future. As one person said to me "it's pattern recognition, not prediction as such".

Another example is in one of Berens' descriptions of Ni; a person choosing a dog has a "vision" of a dog barking and crying, and then realizes that they should get a dog that didn't mind being alone. This doesn't even have anything to do with any particular singular event being "predicted". It was a template or model of a situation that was referenced to inform a decision for the better, to avoid that template possibly being realized in a future event. Even though the dog vision seemed tangible, its application was clearly a conceptual model (an event that was not "at hand"), and again, not a hard prediction.
(and we see here, again, that the "template" is something that comes up from the unconscious; not something consciously brought up for a comparison).

In Beebe's new book, the Ne/Ni difference is described as “seeing possibilities in what was consciously shared with me that others might never have imagined” and “Look[ing] at the big picture of the unconscious where the gestalts that moved nations, religions and epochs lay, even in the midst of apparently individual experience” (and other function i/e distinctions) (p.31)

Ni “trusts one’s own interpretation of what is real, fundamental, and of lasting importance over what others may see and think”. He quotes from Henderson on the difference between the two functions: “Introverted intuition perceives the variety and the possibility for development of the inner images, whereas introverted sensing perceives the specific image which defines the psychic activity that needs immediate attention”. (emphasis added). Extraverted intuition is shortly afterward described as spotting “the still unrealized possibilities in things”.

This makes it occur to me, that Ni is likely what helps artistic people like SP songwriters, as I always wondered how you could put together an all new composition without just copying from others. New sound patterns probably come up from the unconscious, as Ni works in tandem with Se. I on the other hand, will try to imagine new tune ideas with Ne, but the only thing I'll have to go on is what I bring up from memory through Si. All I can then think of is taking what I've already heard before and trying to change it into something new, but it still doesn't work, and is not original.

N is about the "big picture" in general, and the difference is that with Ni the big picture is "universalized" (in which the data must be deciphered on one's own) and with Ne the big picture is "localized" to immediate objects.

Above, I had replaced “What could be” and “what will be” for the N attitudes. “Could be” fits either attitude of N, and “will be”, while fitting somewhat for Ni, gives an impression of Ni being solely about the future. Both “could” and “will” are about the future, though “will” is more certain, and Ni isn’t always about predicting necessarily certain events.

“What yet” brings to mind the Biblical story of the Rich Young Ruler, who asked “what yet do I lack?” in keeping the Law. This is actually useful in fitting Ni’s description of dealing with the “unconscious” and the “hunches” that spring from it. If he was so certain he was observing the whole Law “from my youth”, then why would he ask Jesus what he lacked? Not even “DO I lack?”, as if “just checking; just in case” (which is more of the Ne perspective; "what if), but basically confessing SOMETHING was [definitely] missing somewhere. This was an unconscious intuition, and then Jesus “fills in” the missing element, that he was clinging onto his possessions, and this violated the intent of the Law, though not the actual letter. (This sort of filling in the hard STJ sort of data of the people with Ni-like products is what makes people think Jesus was an INFJ even though as a divine person, He wouldn’t have a type).

With cognition basically answering “yes/no” (tenable/viable or not), and perception breaking "yes/no" down into what "is" or "isn't", which then breaks down into either "known/unknown" or "guessed/naysayed":

Se yes/no (what's “known” or not) determined by whatever is physically before you
Si yes/no (what “known” or not) determined by whatever you remember physically experiencing
Ne yes/no ("guessing" where it 'could be' heading or not) determined by the objects involved themselves
Ni yes/no ("guessing" where it 'could be' heading or not) determined by unconscious internal imagery

Both Ne and Ni “fill in” things from a “big picture”, but Ne lets the object or entire environment fill in its own big picture, where Ni looks within to access a wholly separate big picture, that others likely can’t even be made to see.

Ne I find says “yes” to everything, because looking at an object, you can imagine anything for it. It's like Se in its "openness" to "emergent" data. If somethng's there, then Se says "yes"; if not, then it's an automatic "no". Ne is about "where it's heading", which is not as solidly determined as whether it's actually "there" or not. "Where it's heading", in its own right, can be anything. So it’s basically the judgment function or tandem-mate Si that would have to indicate an outcome is not tenable or viable and thus "nay" it. (Ne's "nay" might otherwise simply be the possibility of something "not" being there, or an outcome not happening, but that will be just another possible option and not settled).

Ni will say “yes” or “no” (and more often says “no”, especially to things Ne takes for granted) based on a hunch, gut instinct, or image that just comes up. Then, Je will be used to verify the perception with it's own "yes" or "no"; It will determine the “guess” as being “right”, or “nay-say” as "wrong”. (Hence, this again is immediate, like Se, and thus both are "Realizing", where Ne like Si is about comparing data, or "Inquiring").

This brings to mind an example I’ve used, in debate on various points of type theory, and an INTJ will often be a "nay-sayer". (Seemingly saying "no" for no reason at all, where Ne says "can't these ideas all coexist?"). I notice, they will often be the one to use what’s basically a Te authority (such as psychometrics and “empirical” science) to debunk whatever I'm arguing for (via Ne). Other INTJ’s accept the idea, though, so what’s the difference? What it is, is that one person’s Ni is saying “no”, and the other's Ni is saying “yes”. Both then use Te to verify their perceptions, adding a revealed [i.e. externally sourced] determination of "incorrect" to the "no".
It looked to me like this “no” had no basis, as long as Ne said “yes”, and then Ti could verify it (with its own "yes"; i.e. "true") because it fits logically (and in other topics, such as religious debate —likely often against NTJ's, I would see parts of the opponent’s arguments as often just “pulling things out of the air”), but it’s Ni, behind the scenes just perceiving it as untenable; i.e. not able to be held, or not "viable" as a possible reality), for reasons that might not even be conscious.

Any image or interpretive thought that comes up (that isn't a past concrete experience), that locks on to a "yes" or especially "no" to a possibility, regardless of what the involved object itself would allow, is likely Ni.

So basically, to sum up the difference between Ne and Ni, Ne usually involves consciously making an inference from some sort of "object" (even if stored in memory; there are actually what are known as "inner objects"), while for Ni, the inference (or even just a random 'image') comes from within. Ne and Ni (as "iNtuition") are both described as "unconscious" because they're dealing with inferences and not hard items you "consciously" sense before you; but Ne (being extraverted) is consciously accessed, while Ni (as introverted) is less consciously accessed; it just "comes up".

An example of the world-views (dominant and the complexes), using my type:

Spine, Arm and opposite orientation of dominant:

The way this works out for me (as INTP), is, my inner world has always been filled with rational judgments. Those judgments tend to be logical connections focusing on "things" rather than ethical judgments focusing on people. This "Thinking" is basically "for its own sake" as Jung put it. However, the ego still would like its judgments to be beyond itself, especially since they tie into universals anyway. Hence, it turns to the auxiliary function, which ends up as its main channel to the outside world. The internal judgments are then presented to the outer world in the form of perceptions of conceptual possibilities offered to help other people see and consider the personal or universal principles of the ego's inner world.
If the preference was Sensory data instead, the inner linear connections would tend to be more tangibly focused, and I would present them to the outer world by more "hands-on" means, such as helping people with physical activities, crafting, or fixing things. The auxiliary function also within the ego "feeds" the dominant, of course. So I turn to the outside to take in more data to churn into the internal thinking. I had always noticed this, even since childhood.

Even though my Thinking is usually oriented inwardly, sometimes I can turn it outward directly when needed, such as to fill in for the limitations of the inward logic/outward possibilities combination when it doesn't accomplish the goal. Like when the logic needs to be applied in the outside world to be useful to others. So if people don't understand my conclusions, then I'll extravert the Thinking and appeal to other theorists and their conclusions or borrow naming conventions (agreed upon logic), rationalize/justify the conclusions, organize them into tables and illustrations, etc. I may even arrange external things to fit an internal model (which may not be obvious to others observing).
If I was naturally oriented to the outer world with linear connections, then I would present this to the world in a direct fashion by arranging things according to logic, informed by internal perception, rather than offering it in the form of possibilities or physical guidance.

Another perspective on the functions: Matrix of objects, motion, holistic and linear:

Fundamental Nature of the MBTI (Mark Bruzon)

While this idea might not clarify the processes for the un-advanced; it does give another perspective to look at them through.

Reality is portrayed as a grid-like matrix.
Perception deals in the components of the matrix

Sensing is portrayed as dealing with objects ("physical"; including people, events, etc), or what things ARE. They are portrayed as dots at the intersections of the grids

iNtuition is basically what things DO, or how they work, move ("motion"), etc. Hence, the grid becomes abstract (dotted lines) with no objects shown

Extraversion covers the entire matrix, or "wide area" Introversion covers a "local area"; perhaps a single object, or its immediate area.

So Introverted Sensing will focus on a particular object and the sensory information incorporated into a localized matrix area. This will end up most dependent on a familiar and stable environment.

Extraverted Sensing deals with objects in a wide matrix area, and hence, awareness of the immediate physical environment, and the enjoyment of sensory stimuli and living in the present.

Introverted Intuition: how things work/move in a localized matrix area. So it's more into the conceptual principles that underlie a given event, not in the event itself. Each object in the analogy above (being drawn to a conclusion) can be understood individually in its role in the conclusion.

Extraverted Intuition how things work/move in a wide matrix area. Conceptualizes within the overall picture, and thus immediately aware of all the possibilities suggested by a particular situation.

Judging deals in the connections within the matrix

Feeling is holistic, establishing between multiple objects throughout the matrix. It maintains the integrity of these wide connections and not just the immediate structure. This will lead the feeler to be concerned more with people than things, and a broader perspective. So in the diagrams, you see a section of the matrix enclosed in a circle.

Thinking is linear, based on specific properties. So actions will only have to maintain the immediate matrix structure, and disregard all that is not directly related to the decision at hand. In the diagrams, you see the intersections of the grid (with or without concrete objects) with connecting lines making a path.

To understand how "holistic" equated to feeling, the key is in the word "harmony". Feeling provides a sense of how the world should be, with non-technical criteria, and hence, the association with emotions and attachment. Thinking deals in the technical connections, detached from any other consideration.

The definition of T/F as Technical/Personal would also explain Bruzon's T=linear; F=holistic definition. Impersonal relationships are linear, basically "if this, then that". Personal relationships are a more fuzzy category, that looks at each point's relationship to its environment, rather than a hard line connecting it to the next point. Hence, "holistic".

The attitude of the judging functions is determined by the perception attitude it is paired with (which of course is the opposite attitude). So extraverted Thinking and Feeling deal with local area matrices (not wide area, as you might assume), and introverted Thinking and Feeling deal with the wide area matrix.

This makes perfect sense. It explains why introverted judgments deal in universals, as well as the subjective factor. Universals are represented by the wide area matrix. The local area matrix is the "external" immediate environment the extraverted judgments deal in.
I thought if it in terms of anchoring. With Je, you anchor yourself to the local area, such as a group, organization, the immediate area, etc. With Ji, you cannot anchor yourself to the entire matrix (all of reality, or the universe). So you are basically anchored in yourself, so to speak. Like if you're piloting a ship at sea on the earth (a very localized environment), you can drop anchor, and it will land on the solid surface under the water. Yet, if you're in space (floating through the larger universe), you cannot drop anchor anywhere. According to Relativity, every object is basically its own "at rest" inertial frame of reference. Hence, Ji dealing with subjective and universal things, and Je dealing with local externals.

So introverted Feeling is holistic relationships over a wide area matrix. Universal and personal values and a desire of overall harmony in the overall environment.

Extraverted Feeling: holistic web of connections (and harmony) within localized area: group, family, community, etc.

Introverted Thinking: linear connections suggested by overall external elements. It's not interested in the external situation, but any [universal or internal] understanding it may bring.

Extraverted Thinking: linear connections within a localized matrix area. Hence, bringing order into specific aspects of life such as a particular organization or institution.

Bruzon also maps the functions to the brain hemispheres like Lenore Thomson.

This becomes another evidence of the temperament correlation. Lenore Thomson, in contrast to Bruzon, claims J is linear, and P is holistic (she spells it "wholistic").
If both are true, it means that T and J are both linear, while F and P are both holistic. But in two different areas.

In Bruzon's theory, linear/holistic are concerned with the "connections" between events (T="this causes that" with lines connecting the dots; F is more about an overall "harmony" represented by events being enclosed in a circle).

To Lenore, linear/holistic is:

J [Je/Pi: left brain]="one-after-the-other" rules; desires predictability; structuring reality before it exists, interested in outcome.
P [Pe/Ji: right brain]="all-at-once" approach to life; desires probability; adjusting to conditions here and now, in light of their impact on our goals, interested in dynamic process.

Bruzon's use of the terms are connected with tying together our perceptions, and Lenore's seem to be more about the actual decision making process itself, or the "nature of the values/principles" as she puts it.

In the correlations we are making here, T and J are both "task" focused" (less "responsive"), and F and P are more "people" focused (more responsive). Task-focus is "directive" for the Interaction Style (S+T, N+J) and "structure focused" for the temperament (S+J, N+T), and people-focus is "informing" for the Interaction Style (S+F, N+P), and "motive focused" for the temperament (S+P, N+F).

My understanding was helped in taking shape years ago when I saw this essay: (Achilles Tendencies: Exploring Human Frailty and Personality Type), where it is pointed out that TJ's are the most directive, FP's the least so, and TP's and FJ's somewhere inbetween. (And I deduced from that; because they thus mix the two different forms of people and task focus. TJ's, for instance, are both directive and structure focused. This will yield, a very linear and task-oriented type, while informing and motive focus will make FP's very holistic and people-oriented). So what's happening is that linear and holistic seems to be connected directly to task vs people. (Task-focus=linear; people focus=holistic). What we end up with is that TJ's are the most linear; FP's are the most holistic, and TP's and FJ's are inbetween; mixing linear and holistic in one way or another.

An example is with a speed dial list. Fe types might arrange it by the importance (closeness) of the person to them, while Te types might do it alphabetically. In my observation of this, they're both engaging in a linear task of ordering things one after the other. (while I as a P type would tend to be a bit more indecisive about it; usually leaving it in a default alphabetical order, or perhaps a combination of alphabetical and importance, such as grouping them by importance, and then alphabetizing the names within a group). However, an alphabetical order is more linear than a personal order. A follows B follows C... etc. Arranging by importance is in a way, holistic, and would match Bruzon's "all the dots in a circle" illustration.

So to spell this out:

FJ: the linear decisions [tasks]; holistic connections
FP holistic experience [dynamics]; holistic connections
TJ the linear decisions [tasks]; linear connections
TP holistic experience [dynamics]; linear connections

Hence, TJ, doubly linear, FP, doubly holistic, TP and FJ, a mix of linear and holistic.

See also:

Taking it Again From the Top: Functions from their Generic Roots
Blog series developing and refining these concepts

©ETB